In this “politically correct” age, we’re supposed to look beyond things, superficial things, like race and gender, and judge people by their merit. People even thinking of voting for McCain because Palin is part of the picture aren’t just politically incorrect, they’re showing a complete failure of imagination. Folks, Alaska is not the nation, and she isn’t experienced. (She also has poor taste in jewelry—come on, you want a VP who wears hoops? Not to be blunt, but is it Pennsylvania Avenue or South Philly? I know our culture is getting completely crass & trashed—before the fall of Rome, absurd decadence to the lowet-common-denominator—but there’s one thing to have a puppet government and other for them to cut their “populist” facade and be in appearance as elitist as they are in actuality.) Ovaries or testes, both parties show the same kind of betrayal—selling this country out to multinational corporations and big bankers while taking the carpet out from under the middle class and instituting fascist police-state surveillance and military mechanisms in order to get away with their injustice. These big bankers love neve-ending wars that drain infrastructure and resources so we are perpetual slaves to their money, their policies, their visions of the future. Those are the facts of the matter.
September 1, 2008
January 13, 2008
A comment on how the media is treating this election, ignoring Ron Paul (which, if most poeple knew for the economic and diplomatic changes he is for, would vote for him) and making the de facto rae Hillary or Obama or both v. Giuliani.
People aren’t getting informed, they’re just getting influenced. There’s a big difference between being educated and being influenced. And I think we have a lot of influenced people; I wouldn’t say we have a lot of educated people. The consequences for democracy are huge. When once in democracy we believed we needed a commonly, communally educated populace, now we have sold that ideal out and are settling for an influenced population, a highly suggestible population who will go along with pretty much anything as long as you sell it to them.
January 12, 2008
Women, are you going to be voting for someone who uses stereotypes of women in order to win over another candidate (Obama, for you democrats) who is far more qualified and policy-minded?
Clinton is not the “candidate for women;” she is abusing women with her displays. She is setting women’s rights back at least two decades. Powerful women, stand up and vote on the issues, not on identity politics.
Yes, Obama is more qualified in that he is not resorting to emotions, and is sticking to policy issues. He is qualified in that the “greatest nation in the world” should have a president that looks like a large amount of its population, after 43 presidents that didn’t represent most of its population: i.e., nonwhite and immigrant, the people who are constantly being exploited. This here is not identity politics; this here would be representation for the issues for people who have been constantly denied representation. White women have not been constantly denied representation in this country. It’s safe to say they have a fair amount of power now, and it’s time they shared some of it. We don’t need a Clinton dynasty. Clinton is running on her name alone. Don’t be fooled, don’t be lulled, don’t buy the mainstream media hype that the Clinton era was some kind of glorious time–though it may now look marvelous compared to what Bush & Co. have put us through for two terms. Some of us didn’t benefit when the “wind blew up all sails” in the Internet-boom of the 90s. Some of us were still poor in the 90s. And note I said the “Internet boom” of the 90s. Clinton I cut welfare in the 90s, to the point that if there was a major recession tomorrow (it is on its way), many of the poor and middle class would be hard-pressed to get benefits now–the welfare infrastructure in this country, as well as the rest of the government, has been eroded to a skeleton, to allow for more corporate subcontracting when a major disaster should strike. Any economic upswing in the 90s was not due to government creativity or policy as much as it was due to the novelty of the Internet–and that’s why we’re having hard times now, because that glittering has worn off and we don’t know what the next gimmick will be. And we are a country of gimmicks, because all of our jobs and manufacturing are outsourced to overseas nations. Woe to the American who was failed by the educational-indoctrination system, then cannot fit themselves into the bureaucratic-job-legal-aboveground system of employment–they’ll next be employed in a prison or FEMA concentration camp. Welcome to the future.
The amount of time you’ve been in the status-quo Washington DC Beltway does not make you qualified, Hillary.
Haven’t women been fighting for decades to not be treated like stereotypes, especially the stereotype that they’re emotional and can’t be decisive? Isn’t that the excuse behind the “glass ceiling”?
It is economics, stupid. It’s always been all about the economics. Voting doesn’t matter much if you can’t eat, if your housing is substandard and overcrowding, if your salary (unlike that of Congress members) doesn’t go up every year with inflation/cost-of-living-increases, but your rent goes up 10% a year. What’s Hillary’s economic policy?
Please look beyond the Democratic-Republican paradigm/circus and see that there is a candidate who actually knows something about economics: Ron Paul. He’s on the Republican ticket, but is actually closer to Libertarian values.
Though I may not agree with all of Ron Paul’s takes on social issues, I see that social issues are really caused by ECONOMIC INEQUALITY and disparities in the distribution of wealth, and that when economic issues are really attended to (instead of taxing the poor and middle class and using tax dollars for corporate welfare and defense contracts), the government will not need to step in on social issues to keep the domestic peace. Indeed, the Founders would turn over in their graves to see the extent to which our government intervenes in SOCIAL issues involving our freedom of CHOICE and liberty–what we can eat, how we can dress on the job or in school, what documents we must carry to travel, what substances we can put in our bodies, what substances the State feels everyone must have in our bodies (i.e., vaccines), etc.
But, for God’s sake–this may be our last free election in this rapidly-transforming-to-fascist-nation–if you must vote for a Democrat,–I guess because you like the label–please do not vote for Clinton. Vote for Obama. I’d love a Paul-Obama ticket or an Obama-Paul ticket, or some combination with Kucinich with one of them in a top cabinet post.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for power as it’s always been.
And we all know how power corrupts.